Archive for the ‘Culture Wars’ Category

Anti-Woke Crusade Igniting Threats to Safety and Careers: ‘There’s So Much Hatred Projected at Women in Public Life’, Warns Historian Byline Times -…

Hardeep Matharu reports on how the history of the English countryside has turned into a dangerous battleground as various forces try to provoke an uncivil culture war

The anti-woke agenda of the Government and right-wing media is resulting in threats to the safety and careers of female academics, a historian involved in setting the record straight about British heritages colonial links has warned.

Professor Corinne Fowler, of the University of Leicester, told Byline Times that, following sustained attacks on her work, she has reported three incidents of threats to the police, while a project she has led to teach school children about the imperial history of buildings in their local area has been investigated by MPs in an attempt at political intimidation.

I consider it to be a worrying level of interference with intellectual freedom, she said.

Prof Fowler came to the attention of politicians and the right-wing media after co-editing a report by the National Trust, published last September, detailing how 93 of the buildings in its care have links to colonialism and/or slavery. The report was jumped on by those keen to further the culture wars because its list included Chartwell Sir Winston Churchills family home.

The academic said the timing of the reports release in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests and the tearing down of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol meant that it became a political football, dominated by a very emotional response in which factual historical discussion was denounced as the rewriting of history.

Sadly, what Brexit has taught us is that you can make political capital out of dividing people, Prof Fowler said. The most important thing about this is not to weaponise history. These kinds of interventions actually shut down the possibility of having sensible conversations because it all becomes polarised and politicised. I dont think that anybody of any political persuasion should be using history as a way of manipulating public opinion. Its worrying when national pride gets mixed up with historical fact.

As has been seen elsewhere in public life in a post-truth age, historical fact is being held hostage to irrational, unevidenced feeling.

Facts should not be given equal status to opinion, the academic said. Historians write history, thats what they do. When new evidence comes to light about East India Company connections or the slavery business and how that, for example, shaped philanthropy and philanthropic giving in this country, we then adjust our view of the past accordingly, as led by the evidence.

Its good to have conversations about how to interpret certain facts that come to light but I dont think the basic, fundamental facts should be open for discussion. Thats dangerous. Opinion is given too much sway and we end up having quite irrational conversations about history which are not led by the evidence or guided by facts.

Taking its cue from Donald Trumps Make America Great Again movement in the US, Boris Johnsons anti-woke crusade is well underway carrying forward the divisions laid down by Brexit, which for years was preceded by stories of bendy bananas signifying Britains imprisonment at the hands of the EU.

Another absurd but emotional narrative is now being developed around the term woke originally a reference to those working to eradicate social and racial injustices, but now repackaged into a project of denunciation of anyone considered unpatriotic, leftie or criticising structural ills in Britain. In many ways, it is the clearest modern expression of the old colonial divide and rule presided over by the British Empire to devastating effect of which the Prime Minister is so beloved.

As with Brexit, it seeks to divide along identity lines. How Britain sees itself, its past and values is a key battleground.

The strategy was brazenly on display recently in a Telegraph article entitled We Will Save Our History From Woke Militants. In it, Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary Robert Jenrick said that there has been an attempt to impose a single, often negative narrative which, not so much recalls our national story, as seeks to erase part of it by a cultural committee of town hall militants and woke worthies. The piece announced a change in the law to ensure that planning approval will be required before historical monuments are removed.

Reports in the past week that the Government will be conducting a review into left-wing extremism and attempts by far-left activists to hijack political movements such as Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion contain echoes of the same.

But, backing up Government ministers is much of the press, with the anti-woke agenda now crystallising around the launch of the forthcoming GB News channel. This week, journalist Andrew Neil said he is launching it because I believe the direction of news debate in Britain is increasingly woke and out of touch GB News will be proud of our country, even when revealing its shortcomings and its inequalities. Our default position will not be to do Britain down at every turn.

Aside from the fact that much of Britains media landscape is dominated by newspapers with tendencies to the right, Neils words reek of hypocrisy for another reason.

Ive had hundreds of hostile articles written about me, Ive had my work misrepresented, Ive had threats, Ive got police reports, Ive had all kinds of problems and attempts to intimidate me at a political level, Prof Fowler told Byline Times. How is that not closing down discussion, how is that not cancel culture?

As soon as you slap a label on someone its an excuse not to listen to something really interesting they might have to say, whether or not you agree with them politically. The woke term is a particularly annoying one because it implies that someone is politically biased and therefore cant be trusted.

One of the articles referencing Prof Fowler in the wake of the National Trust report suggested precisely this with the headline of the Mail Online piece declaring: National Trust is Accused of Recruiting Biased Team of Academics to Probe its Properties Links to Empire and the Slave Trade. It included a photo of her in a personal context and details of the other female historians who had co-edited the report.

She is worried that theres so much hatred being projected at women in public life and fears it is part of a wider project to rollback progressive wins.

There is a pattern, an international pattern, across Europe, Australia and the US of trying to discredit academics, particularly female academics, but also climate scientists and increasingly historians of empire, Prof Fowler said. And thats all happening in the context of nationalism.

Its not that journalists shouldnt be critical, its their job to be critical, but when they are running inaccurate, misleading or hostile articles about the work, theyre just fuelling a hostile environment for intellectual curiosity. Intellectual freedom really matters and name-calling is never helpful, ever.

The problem is that, for every hostile Daily Mail article, there are about 300 or so threats that come to me personally on the basis of that coverage. Theres a lot of anger and suffering around at the moment and its not okay to parade historians in front of people as some kind of enemy when all theyre doing is their job. We should be, yes, critical; yes, sceptical; but not hostile or demeaning.

Im not saying Ive been intimidated by it because I havent, Im not going anywhere, but thats not for everybody. That level of threat and intimidation is not something that everybody would choose for their own sanity to withstand. You shouldnt have to be super resilient to be a woman in public life.

Im very concerned that were going to rollback progress in terms of us trying, genuinely trying, to level the playing field for people of colour, for people with disabilities, for women and on LGBT rights. If you have such a hostile environment and youre supporting an environment where its okay to attack women, its okay to attack people of colour, and its okay to attack academics, then how can you have a civilised society which isnt bitterly divided and polarised?

Thats my real concern a lack of respect, openness and ability to learn and grow as a society, together, no matter what our political views.

Prof Fowler has no desire to contribute to the worrying climate being fuelled through the culture wars.

She believes that unconditional respect for all detractors, not concessions on historical facts, is required: You cant have a meaningful conversation with people if youre hostile to them because they dont immediately see what youre driving at.

The academic would like to see history being explored through a local lens as she does with her Colonial Countryside project with schools as well as more initiatives such as University College Londons Legacies of British Slave Ownership which allow people to personally engage with Britains colonial past.

She describes her new book, Green Unpleasant Land, as an important intervention on our countryside and Englishness. Inevitably, it has been subject to ridicule by elements in the right-wing press.

For 400 years, the countryside has been closely connected with ideas of Englishness, she said. Whether thats working-class rural Englishness and farming, but its also this idea of the rural idyll and Arcadia these sorts of ideas which have been written about by poets for hundreds of years.

The real question is why does such work by a historian not keen to attract any public attention on a personal level provoke such a warped reaction? Exactly who or what is she attacking?

On 6 January, Donald Trump told his supporters that they had to show strength to take our country back; that nothing less would suffice. They later stormed the US Capitol, carrying the Confederate flag through the halls of American democracy as if like a dagger through its heart.

We have seen where a manipulated idea of a country, its history, and what it stands for can lead. We turn a blind eye to the deeper, darker project sitting beneath the anti-woke culture wars here in Britain at our peril.

New to Byline Times? Find out about us

Our leading investigations include Russian Interference, Coronavirus, Cronyism and Far Right Radicalisation. We also introduce new voices of colour in Our Lives Matter.

To have an impact, our investigations need an audience.

But emails dont pay our journalists, and nor do billionaires or intrusive ads. Were funded by readers subscription fees:

Or donate to our seasonal crowdfunder to hire an additional journalist to conduct more investigations.

See original here:
Anti-Woke Crusade Igniting Threats to Safety and Careers: 'There's So Much Hatred Projected at Women in Public Life', Warns Historian Byline Times -...

Shame drives the culture wars and its powerful legacy still lives on – Telegraph.co.uk

Russell T Davies could not have known when he made Its A Sin that it would come out during another pandemic one that has elicited an entirely different response. How bittersweet it must be for the survivors of the Aids pandemic to see the care and attention that has been given to cracking Covid.

There are a million reasons Its A Sin is so powerful, and I do not have the word count to go into them all here. It is powerful because it is full of love and it is full of joy, but to me it is powerful because it shows us the true nature of shame, and how deadly it can be. Shame, mostly born out of other peoples ignorance, is what kills. Shame is what essentially leads to the death of one character, a heartbreakingly beautiful boy who is ultimately too scared to find out if he is HIV positive, meaning the disease progresses to Aids.

During his last days, he tells his shocked mother that he is sure he has killed other men, simply by loving them. Later, his friend Jill tells her that so many of the men dying alone in Aids wards believe that, in some small way, they deserve it. That in some small way, this disease is their punishment for not being the child their parents wanted them to be.

Its tempting to see Its A Sin as a very modern period drama, to compartmentalise what happened and tell ourselves that the world has long since moved on. But the shame of Its A Sin is not that far away. While advances in science mean HIV is now an entirely manageable condition, campaigners have faced uphill battles to get preventative drugs, known as PrEP, made available on the NHS. In 2019, almost 700,000 people across the world died from Aids-related illnesses, while 38 million people were living with HIV. And a report published last year by the UN found that the Covidpandemic risks setting back the goal to end the Aids pandemic by at least 10 years. The report estimated that even a six-month disruption in HIV treatment could result in an extra 500,000 deaths in sub-Saharan Africa alone.

We must be careful, too, in believing that the kind of shameful ostracisation gay men faced in the 1980s is a thing of the past. If anything, shame has become mainstream thanks to the advent of social media, and Covid has only cemented its position as a powerful global currency. Shame is the religion that drives the culture wars. Shame is now state-sanctioned, with full-page adverts in national newspapers shaming us into not leaving the house. For many LGBTQ+ people, shame did not magically die with the repeal of Section 28 (a mere 20 years ago). And the trans rights conversation, which now dominates the media, seems powered by shame.

Its A Sin reminds us that shame is a dead end for everyone involved. It gets us nowhere. Its interesting that this show about shame has in itself been shamed, for not telling the story of all the women who died of Aids. But for me, the most powerful character was Jill (interviewed in The Telegraph last month), who shows us how powerful it is to be set free from shame. As Russell T Davies knows, the only way you kill shame is by exposing it to the light. Let this extraordinary drama be a prompt for us all to do just that.

Read more:
Shame drives the culture wars and its powerful legacy still lives on - Telegraph.co.uk

Why Tom Moore mattered: a culture war over the Captain – TheArticle

It seems so obvious why Captain (later Major) Sir Thomas Moore mattered. Why should we even ask? He was so decent, raised so much money for charity, served in the war defending India and what was then Burma. And he was so modest. It is really no wonder that he became a national hero.

But there is something more. He stood for a kind of Britishness that resonated with Middle England. First, he linked the war and the coronavirus crisis. Each year on Armistice Day we realise how few survivors there are from those two extraordinary generations who gave their lives for their country. Those wars dominated the lives of British families for more than a century. Nearly 900,000 military dead in World War One. Nearly 400,000 in World War Two, not counting 70,000 civilian dead. In Blake Baileys new biography of Philip Roth, he describes VJ Day. As he celebrated with the other youngsters, writes Bailey, Roths jubilation tempered somewhat by the sight of older people sobbing on benches probably the parents of boys who had been killed, he thought. The war was over and it was a wonderful thing, but not for them. They would have this grief forever.

Hence the shock when young demonstrators desecrated the Cenotaph and the statue of Winston Churchill last year. For so many British people, these were disgusting, unforgivable acts. This brings us to the second reason why Tom Moore was regarded as a national hero. Without ever wishing it, he had become part of the culture wars, the growing divide about what kind of country Britain is or should be.

I cant remember any moment in my lifetime when Britishness has been so bitterly contested. Which statues of the past should be torn down? Is Britains past something to be celebrated a story of freedom, tolerance and democracy or is it something to be ashamed of, a dark story of slavery, racism, colonialism? The older you are, the more likely you will see it as the former. The younger you are, the more inclined you will be to see it as the latter. Of course, its not just a generational conflict. If youre black or brown you will wonder why generations of British historians and politicians have been so silent about the legacy of slavery and Empire.

What does any of this have to do with Tom Moore? On Twitter I saw this by @JarelRB just after Moore died: The cult of Captain Tom is a cult of White British Nationalism. I was appalled. No, it isnt, I replied. People wanted to pay their respects to a fine man. Its as simple as that. @JarelRB turns out to be the Reverend Jarel Robinson-Brown, a young black clergyman still in his 20s. He has now deleted his tweet and apologised; the Church is investigating. But what fuelled his anger?

Many want to build a statue in Tom Moores memory. Who would bet against that statue being desecrated in no time? Why? Because some (many?) would share Robinson-Browns anger and see respect for an old army veteran who raised so much money for charity as a cult of White British Nationalism. Too white, too male, too old, too patriotic. This is what we have come to. We shouldnt pretend otherwise.

Is it a coincidence that this response to the death of Sir Thomas Moore took place at the same time as a debate about patriotism in the Labour Party? It is clear that one reason Labour lost so resoundingly in 2019 was not just because Jeremy Corbyn associated with Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites and terrorists, but because there was a sense among many ordinary British people that he preferred the Palestinian flag to the Union Jack, the IRA to British veterans.He didnt know (or care) when the Queen gave her speech on Christmas Day. Sir Keir Starmer knows this cost Labour hugely in the last election and has started to speak about patriotism and the British flag. But then a video from 2005 appeared of Starmer boasting of supporting the abolition of the monarchy. Guido Fawkes commented: It wont go down so well in Bishop Auckland or Ashfield.

This isnt just about one quote. YouGov published a poll about patriotism. It asked people, How patriotic would you say you are? A 61 per cent majority of British people polled said Patriotic. 88 per cent of Conservative voters but only 44 per cent of Labour voters called themselves Patriotic. There was a similar divide between Leavers (81 per cent) and Remainers (54 per cent).

Middle England took Captain Tom to its heart. Rightly so. There is so much to admire and respect. But another England would, I fear, disagree. Much of the political debate over years to come will be over these issues.

We are the only publication thats committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one thats needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.

Read the original post:
Why Tom Moore mattered: a culture war over the Captain - TheArticle

Can We Stop Obsessing Over Every Personnel Decision Made by The New York Times? – The New Republic

Who edits The New York Times? This is not, at least at first glance, a particularly complicated question. Dean Baquet has been the executive editor of the newspaper of record since 2014, a period of profound growth, when the company amassed six million subscribers (it had about 1.5 million the year Baquet took over). While The Washington Post has made strides in recent years, the Times is still an agenda-setting newspaper like no other. In recent years it has become an industry-swallowing behemoth, hiring whoever it wants whenever it wants, while dominating a number of media formatsaudio, visual, and, of course, text.

But the question Who edits The New York Times? has taken on a different dimension in recent years. While the obsession over the Times foibles and fuck-ups has long been a cottage industry, it is now firmly entrenched in the culture wars. According to the anti-woke contingent, the Times is increasingly run by a pitchfork-wielding mob of scolds demanding ideological purity and adherence to faddish identity politics. Last year, in the wake of a controversial op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton calling for troops to quell violence associated with the George Floyd protests, the mob was able to force out the papers opinion editor (who was pushed out) and a controversial employee (who resigned). This mob, the argument goes, is holding the rest of the paper hostage. Baquet is only nominally in charge.

On Friday, there were anti-woke howls across the internet after the Times announced that Donald McNeil, a prize-winning health care reporter, was leaving the paper he had worked at since 1976. McNeil had recently received widespread acclaim for his reporting on Covid-19, but a report from The Daily Beast two weeks ago alleged that he had repeated a racial slur in front of teenagers while accompanying a high school trip to Peru. (The Times apparently sends its reporters on these trips, which cost $5,500 each, as guides. Fancy!) McNeil had initially been given a reprieve by Baquet but was pushed out after 150 staff members objected to his light treatment in a letter to management. Here was another smoking gun: The paper of record devouring its own on command from a legion of woke, illiberal scolds.

See more here:
Can We Stop Obsessing Over Every Personnel Decision Made by The New York Times? - The New Republic

S.E. Cupp: Bitter, partisan reactions to AOC are proof American politics has lost its way – TribLIVE

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

Last Monday night, nearly a month after Trump-supporting insurrectionists stormed the U.S. Capitol looking to overturn a democratic election and, in some cases, kill U.S. lawmakers, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took to Instagram Live to share her harrowing account of that day.

Traumatized not only by the close encounter with people who were there to harm her but also the PTSD she suffers as a result of a previous sexual assault, Ocasio-Cortez said that as she hid in another congresswomans office, she thought she was going to die.

She was inarguably right to be terrified. Terrorism was, in part, the goal of the Capitol insurrection. Last month, in fact, a 34-year-old Texan named Garret Miller was arrested for taking part in the riot and posting violent threats online, including a tweet that simply said, Assassinate AOC.

But to the many on the right who have told her and other Democrats to move on from those events, Ocasio-Cortez says they were using the same tactics of every other abuser who just tells you to move on. Just a cursory scroll through Twitter in the wake of her powerful testimony proves her point.

This is a masterclass in emotional manipulation, journalist Michael Tracey says.

Only AOC can make the Capitol riots all about herself, Breanna Morello tweets.

Members of congress lie, including AOC. Especially AOC, Austin Petersen says.

Sadly, this is not surprising. In the ugly, divisive and tribal political hellscape in which we are currently living, AOC is a reviled figure on the right, ergo we shouldnt expect even the revelation that shed been sexually assaulted, or that she was fearing for her life on Jan. 6, cowering in a closet and wondering aloud if shell live to be a mother one day to be met with basic decency or empathy by some hardened partisans who see only enemy avatars, not actual people.

The rioters who breached the Capitol, the ones who shouted hang Mike Pence, the women who went looking for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to shoot her in the friggin brain, the man who beat a police officer with an American flag, another who attacked a police officer with a hockey stick, another who etched Murder the Media into a door inside the building, the people who planted pipe bombs around Washington, D.C., that day, the ones who marched swastikas into the peoples house, the ones who carried Confederate flags and white pride signs they werent thinking about the people in that building, only their own hate.

They werent thinking about moms and dads, daughters and sons, grandparents and grandchildren in that building when they went looking for scalps. They didnt see Officer Brian Sicknick as Charles and Gladys son, or Ken and Craigs brother, when they killed him with a fire extinguisher. They didnt see Pelosi as Bellas grandma or Pence as Charlottes dad.

The Republican lawmakers like Sens. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who taunted their supporters into fighting the election results, hyping baseless claims of fraud and stolen elections, werent thinking about the people on the other side of the anger they were stoking. They werent thinking about the human cost of all that frothing, fearmongering and incitement. Remarkably and chillingly, they dont appear to be even now, as they continue to spread the lies.

This kind of unconscionable moral rot has infected America deep in its core. Its in our partisan politics, our self-destructive culture wars, our hysterical media and our addiction to hate.

Its becoming clearer with every passing day that amid all the things posing an imminent threat to our way of life disease, climate change, war its truly our inability to see each other as people before politics thats going to destroy us.

S.E. Cupp is the host of S.E. Cupp Unfiltered on CNN.

Categories:Opinion | S.E. Cupp Columns

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

More S.E. Cupp Columns Stories

Follow this link:
S.E. Cupp: Bitter, partisan reactions to AOC are proof American politics has lost its way - TribLIVE